Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 217
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-04-16 12:59 [p.15478]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues will agree that my colleague from Winnipeg North has done a terrific job as the spokesperson for our party with respect to citizenship and immigration issues.
The member's speech highlighted a number of concerns that our party has with respect to the temporary foreign worker program. However, my question for my colleague is very simple. Does he agree with me that there is considerable merit in having a well run, balanced temporary foreign worker program? For example, in my constituency in the seafood processing sector, many businesses depend on temporary foreign workers who come and live in small rural coastal communities in Atlantic Canada. They contribute a lot to the communities themselves and a great deal to the businesses in which they work.
It is important to have a labour market opinion that is an accurate reflection of the labour market and companies need to be prevented from abusing this program. However, does the member agree with me that done properly, particularly in rural and remote communities and some sectors like tourism and seafood processing, there is a real role for a temporary foreign worker program in assisting these businesses?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-04-15 14:39 [p.15408]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, although the income of average Canadian families is just not increasing, the Conservatives have decided to increase the price of more than 1,200 products used by these families.
For example, a new child's bicycle will cost 5% more, and a wig for a cancer patient will cost 15% more.
Why are the Conservatives increasing the cost of living for average Canadian families, which are already paying their fair share?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 14:14 [p.14835]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Roger Smith, who is retiring from CTV after a distinguished career as a respected and much liked journalist. He first joined the National Press Gallery in 1977, when you were not even born, Mr. Speaker, and I was nine years old.
Roger went on to have an extensive career in foreign capitals. From his front-row seat, he interpreted complex and fast-moving world events in a way that Canadians trusted and very much admired.
His recent assignment was to cover federal politics from Ottawa. He travelled with party leaders in six different national elections and easily made friends in all political parties. His warm sense of humour made him fun to travel with.
I met Roger when I was a young assistant in Mr. Chrétien's office 15 years ago, and I have considered him a friend ever since.
We wish Roger and his wife Denise Chong and their family well as Roger says goodbye to the National Press Gallery, where he has left a distinguished record and mark that will be remembered for a long time.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 15:02 [p.14844]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, last Friday I met Maurice Martin, a fisherman from Aldouane, in my riding of Beauséjour. Mr. Martin has been on a hunger strike for 12 days to oppose the unfair changes made under the Conservatives' EI reform. He is doing what the Conservatives refuse to do: he is proudly standing up for—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 15:03 [p.14844]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, he is doing what the Conservatives will not do: he is standing up for seasonal workers.
Here is what Mr. Martin wants to ask the Prime Minister: why is the government punishing people who work very hard? Why do the Conservatives want to kill communities in Kent County and elsewhere in Canada with their EI reform?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-18 15:20 [p.14847]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a petition today signed by over 100 residents from all over New Brunswick condemning the government's changes to employment insurance. The petitioners maintain that the changes will have a very negative effect on seasonal industries and their employees. They are asking the government to reverse this reckless and unfair course.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-07 14:55 [p.14732]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the five additional weeks of employment insurance were so good for the regions with high unemployment rates that the Conservatives themselves renewed the program three times.
In just a few days, the people who would have had the additional five weeks are going to have their claims rejected and will have to rely on food banks and provincial social assistance.
Because of the Conservatives' poor decisions, areas like Kent County, New Brunswick, and the Gaspé are going to suffer.
Why are the Conservatives determined to impoverish regions that are already struggling?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 15:58 [p.14638]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Charlottetown, so people can stay tuned and look forward to his comments.
I am happy to speak to the motion today from my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth. I and my colleagues in the Liberal caucus will be voting against the motion when it comes up for a vote. In our view, not only is this motion constitutionally very naive, it may in fact even be a cynical attempt on the part of the New Democrats to change the channel on what will be a difficult evening for them tomorrow night when they are forced to get up and vote on a Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-457, with respect to the Clarity Act.
It is constitutionally naive because, although some NDP members in their comments have suggested otherwise, most constitutional experts acknowledge that not changing the character of the Senate but abolishing the Senate would require the unanimity of the provinces, and that is for a very important reason. At Confederation, the Senate was, as members will know, designed to offer the smaller provinces in our federation a chance to have some regional balance that would not necessarily be found in this chamber, which reflected the population of different provinces and different constituencies. The New Democrats realize that unanimity with respect to abolition of the Senate would be impossible and, if we are being generous, we might even say it would be very hard to achieve.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway offered examples of premiers who had been in favour of the abolition of the Senate, but they are from Canada's most populous provinces. That the premier of Ontario or the premier of British Columbia may favour the abolition of the Senate should not surprise many Canadians. It would surprise me if the premiers of small provinces such as the premier of Manitoba, the premier of my own province of New Brunswick or the New Democratic premier of Nova Scotia were in favour. These premiers correctly recognize that the Senate offers the smaller provinces in our federation a chance in the Canadian Parliament to have some balance.
The opening of the Constitution, as my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville so properly pointed out this morning, would offer a constitutional swamp that would see no end. There is the idea that we could have the partners in our federation come to a constitutional meeting. We know the Prime Minister certainly is averse to any meetings that would involve all first ministers in the federation, so we should not hold our breath for that ever to happen. It has not happened on issues as important as the economy, so I find it hard to imagine it would happen on an issue as complicated as abolishing the Senate. However, at that meeting, we know very well that first nations people would want to talk, correctly so, about self-government and aboriginal rights. Certainly the current separatist Government of Quebec would arrive with a laundry list, which would take up a two or three week meeting, of ridiculous grievances and complaints that it would fabricate to try to hijack the meeting.
As for the idea that we could ever get to a point, Canadians are not interested because we have been at that point. In the 1980s, under the leadership of a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, Canadians remember Meech Lake and they remember the Charlottetown accord process. Canadians are correctly asking their elected parliamentarians to focus on issues that affect their daily lives, like the economy, youth unemployment and the environment. Those are the calls I get in my constituency office in Shediac. I have not had numerous people say to me that we need to convene a first ministers conference to discuss the issue of abolishing the Senate.
I understand why the NDP tried, somewhat cynically, to take advantage of some of the problems the Senate is having right now.
We have seen in reports from various media outlets that expenses have been called into question and that some senators seem to be having difficulty determining their place of residence.
Obviously, we are not in any way minimizing the importance of settling and resolving the situation and holding accountable anyone who acted inappropriately.
That is why the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration decided, on its own initiative, to refer certain cases to a major external audit that will be made public, and some cases involve certain senators appointed by the current Prime Minister. I have no doubt that if the external audit indicates potentially fraudulent circumstances, the senators will do the right thing and refer everything to the appropriate authorities. The Senate takes its financial responsibility seriously.
We are in no way minimizing the concerns of Canadian taxpayers about circumstances that are of significant concern to us. I must say that no one in the Liberal caucus will object to having people who may have done something inappropriate face serious consequences, including prosecution, if so required.
However, we cannot pretend that we need an endless constitutional discussion because there is currently an issue with residency or expenses. This problem may be resolved severely, appropriately and quickly, as the Senate itself has said. I think this is an attempt by the NDP to change the subject. Perhaps the NDP is thinking that tomorrow evening, with the vote on Bill C-457 , put forward by the Bloc Québécois, will be difficult for them. We know very well that the NDP opposed the Clarity Act. The NDP will have to be absent en masse tomorrow evening when we, the Liberals, will vote against this Bloc bill that makes no sense. Sort of along those same lines, the NDP is pretending that another constitutional crisis needs our attention.
The Senate at its very inception, as I said at the beginning of my comments, offers the regions of the country a chance to balance the obvious demographic weight of some of the larger provinces in this chamber. An unelected Senate will certainly never be able to play the effective and, I hope, regionally equal role that the Fathers of Confederation, almost 150 ago, thought this model might achieve.
We need to be clear. The Liberal Party has supported and continues to support the notion of an elected, effective and equal Senate. For us, that would be an appropriate Senate reform measure.
In our view the country is not ready to proceed to a constitutional conference to discuss that at this moment. However, if we were to accept that the abolition of the Senate was in fact the alternative, then smaller provinces like mine in New Brunswick, like Manitoba, where my colleague from Winnipeg North sits as a member of the House, would not have an opportunity to work with the other partners of the federation and hopefully a prime minister who would interested at some point in having a discussion, when the moment was right, on how we could achieve an elected, effective and equal Senate.
My colleague from Toronto—Danforth, a member for whom I have considerable respect, also has on the order paper his own private member's bill, Bill C-470, which seeks itself to abolish the Clarity Act and substitute this bizarre 50% plus one formula, which shocks many Canadians, as a threshold to break up the country.
I think some NDP MPs would also have difficulty voting, and I am thinking of my friend from Acadie—Bathurst, who represents so well francophone minorities outside Quebec. For him to get up and have to vote for a bill by the member for Toronto—Danforth would obviously be difficult. That is probably why it is so low on the order of precedence, with no possible hope of ever actually coming before the House to be debated.
It is a cynical attempt, from our perspective, to change the channel at a time when Canadians think we should be referring and discussing issues a lot more important to the daily lives of Canadians than a pipe dream that somehow we could convene a constitutional conference to abolish the Canadian Senate.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 16:10 [p.14640]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his comments and his question.
If he wishes to talk about dead ends, then he will have to speak about the bill introduced by his own colleague from Toronto—Danforth, Bill C-470, to abolish the Clarity Act and thereby lead Canadians and francophones outside Quebec to think that our country could be split by a simple 50%+1 majority.
If he wants to talk about dead ends, then he should talk about his own motion—the NDP motion—which we have been discussing all day, about abolishing the Senate. The NDP, which claims to care so deeply about unemployment, young people and the environment, has decided to talk constitutional nonsense today. The motion may be welcomed by some, but New Democrats know very well that it will never see the light of day. The NDP might think that it could happen, but it is constitutionally impossible.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 16:12 [p.14640]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex can perhaps imagine all kinds of scary scenarios from 2008, but I have no reason to think any of his musings are accurate.
If he is asking if we support the government's decision to refer to the Supreme Court the whole issue of the constitutionality of some of the supposed Senate reform bills that it leaves on the order paper and does not bring up for debate, the answer is yes. In fact, we were urging the government to put the question to the Supreme Court even before it left a number of its alleged Senate reform bills languishing on the order paper, and more importantly, we were urging the government to ask its partners in the federation what kind of Senate reform would be appropriate. The Government of Quebec had already taken a reference case to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Province of New Brunswick was preparing to take a reference case to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
The government's sudden conversion to some respect for the Supreme Court and its decision to take its cynical, piecemeal, ineffective Senate reform measures to the Supreme Court for an opinion hide what it is unable to get it from its own Senate caucus, which supposedly agreed with these Senate reform measures. I see no evidence that Senator Duffy is ready to send in a resignation letter because he suddenly had a conversion over getting himself elected to the Senate from the province of Prince Edward Island.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-05 17:49 [p.14652]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I want to tell my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex at the outset that I intend to vote in favour of this motion. I listened carefully to the member's comments, as well as the comments from my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. From my perspective, there is considerable merit in the motion advanced by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
As members know, the Liberal Party and my colleagues in caucus have always supported and been very much in favour of the freedom of religion and conscience. However, we have some concerns about the implication that one particular right or freedom, in this case, the freedom of religion and conscience, would be promoted above another basic human right or freedom that our country has always defended and stood up for abroad.
Our perspective tells us that our foreign policy should include the promotion of all freedoms and rights, for example, the rights of women, homosexuals and different groups around the world, who at various times have faced terrible oppression. They also deserve a robust defence in Canada's foreign policy. Our foreign policy and our diplomats should not shy away from speaking out against many of these abuses and practices which appall and shock millions of Canadians. The Liberal Party has always promoted and defended freedom of religion and conscience as a fundamental human right, not only under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also as a matter of international law.
We strongly belive that we must defend and promote all human rights, including rights that go against certain religious beliefs, including equality for women and equality for the LGBT community.
One right or freedom should not be promoted as more important than other rights or freedoms. The government must guarantee that it will not encourage any interpretation that would give precedence to religious rights over other rights and freedoms, as fundamental as the right to religious freedom is, and it must tell us how it will do so.
We have also spoken about some concerns we have with regard to the Office of Religious Freedom. After considerably and consistently diminishing Canada's international presence and engagement, cutting democratic development programs focused on human rights, and ignoring or marginalizing Canada's knowledgeable and experienced diplomatic corps, the Conservatives have established an office with limited scope and resources to do what many of these very diplomats and programs did so effectively in the past.
The promotion of freedom of religion as an objective of our foreign policy obviously has very considerable merit. However, again, it should not and cannot replace a broader engagement of Canada on the international stage in the promotion of other rights and freedoms with the same vigour and enthusiasm that the government wants to promote religious freedoms. Rather than pursuing substantive results in the areas of religious freedoms alongside other human rights, the government's approach often prefers to resort to symbolism or posturing, often focused on a domestic political audience. The government must demonstrate to Canadians that it is focused on a constructive engagement for Canada in foreign policy, not simply easy symbols or gestures, which have considerable merit in and of themselves, but should not replace a more broad and robust engagement for Canada abroad.
We must ensure that the creation of the Office of Religious Freedom does not create a hierarchy among religious rights and other rights to equality, that it is not used for partisan or political purposes and that its conception of religious freedom is truly pluralistic.
We feel it is very important to ensure that the Office of Religious Freedom, which we believe has merit, is never used to exclude certain religions or forms of religious expression.
For example, Canada should be investing a national endowment in a centre for democracy to establish a framework for the protection and promotion of democratic rights as basic human rights as well. Since 2008, the Conservatives have promised to set up a non-partisan office for democratic development but have failed to do so.
We see the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, an independent professional public service and an effective, truly transparent electoral mechanism as essential parts of Canada's foreign policy, as well as the promotion of human rights and religious freedoms.
Members will remember that the Conservatives dismantled, in a rather dramatic and unfair way, an organization known as Rights and Democracy. Until the Conservatives sabotaged it, it had previously played an effective role in promoting Canadian foreign policy in terms of our participation in helping fledgling democracies implant basic institutions of democratic rule and electoral transparency.
The Liberals will always work with the government in supporting and promoting matters as important as the protection of religious freedoms and the promotion of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Clearly, for a long time this has been an essential part of Canada's engagement abroad.
However, we have real concerns that we are increasingly limiting the face of Canada's foreign policy to a more narrow range of issues, instead of accepting that Canadian NGOs and a professional and competent diplomatic corps that has served this country for generations with honour should be allowed to also express, in a very robust way, our support for other freedoms and other human rights as extensively as the government would propose with respect to this Office of Religious Freedom.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-03-04 15:10 [p.14559]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions signed by residents of the province of New Brunswick from my constituency and from a number of others. The petitions express serious concerns about the government's changes to employment insurance. These changes would be very negative for those who work in seasonal industries, and they are calling on the government to change these regressive measures immediately.
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-15 11:23 [p.14199]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' mismanagement of the economy is having a real impact on all Canadians. Whether it be the closing of immigration and Service Canada offices or unacceptably long telephone wait times to discuss income taxes, all Canadians are being hurt by these Conservative decisions. Now we hear that regional post offices may be closing. Even more Canadians will be paying the price.
Why must so many people suffer because of the Conservatives' financial incompetence?
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-15 11:24 [p.14199]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to mention rural post offices. Whether it is the closing of immigration offices, Service Canada offices, or unacceptable wait times people face to try to talk to someone on the phone at Revenue Canada, Canadians are being punished by Conservative economic mismanagement.
We now learn that rural post offices in communities like Bayfield, New Brunswick, which I represent—the minister would know it well; it is close to the Confederation Bridge, which goes from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island—are now threatened by further cuts from the Conservative government.
Will the minister stand and say that they will maintain Jean Chrétien's moratorium of 1994—
Collapse
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-02-14 14:26 [p.14154]
Expand
Mr. Speaker, if non-aboriginal women went missing at the same rate as aboriginal women in Canada, there would be 20,000 missing or murdered women. The police find the culprit in 84% of murder cases in Canada, but when the victim is aboriginal, this rate drops to 50%.
Serious allegations have been made against the police, but the government still refuses to take action. Why not hold a judicial inquiry immediately?
Collapse
Results: 121 - 135 of 217 | Page: 9 of 15

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data